Hearts of Iron IV - Developer Diary 9 - Vacation and Air tech

[Axe99]

@ Podcat - please don't forget you're on holiday, don't worry about all of us crazy folk until you're back at work, and definitely don't let us spoil your beer . Deffo no need to address issues now in my book, am very grateful we got a DD when you should have been at the pub .

 

[Nikolai]

A quick question: Will there be an option to refit your planes for new technology/models? Take them off air, use some IC to build the new model etc. Or do you need to build entirely new units?

 

[plasticpanzers]

Misterbean,
what is the difference between a B17 and a C47? Indeed.....:rofl:

what 'crazy folks'? 3 out of my 5 doctors say i am sane....:wacko:

 

[steveh11]

What's the difference between building 10,000 transports and building 10,000 bombers that you dedicate to transport duty only?

10,000 transports that can magically turn into bombers on a whim?

 

[marcasino]

What's the difference between building 10,000 transports and building 10,000 bombers that you dedicate to transport duty only?

If you are able one day to use them as bombers and the next day switch them to transport then there's an issue. It should take time and resources to convert between the two roles, otherwise this can be massively exploited.

 

[BrotherArdis]

What's the difference between building 10,000 transports and building 10,000 bombers that you dedicate to transport duty only?

The difference is that once the transport mission is over, or before it starts, you can happily use those 'dedicated' bombers for regular bombing missions. I'm not a specialist, but I don't think the Germans had to worry about thousands of C-47s bombing the Reich after Market-Garden...

 

[Radu]

Let me first say that I do appreciate the HOI IV team taking a moment to provide us with a Developer Diary. This said, I'd like to add my voice to others in saying that conflating Strategic Bombers and Transport Aircraft is a "faux pas".

To claim that the B-17,B-25 or B-29 could deploy airborne as efficiently as dedicated transport aircraft is the same as saying that transport aircraft can function as strategic bombers as efficiently as historically dedicated designs. Both statements are false.

A strategic bomber and transport aircraft cannot be used for strategic bombing/troop transport interchangeably. To make that claim belies crass ignorance and Paradox, of all developers, should know better.

Transport Aircraft may not need their own tech, maybe not even their own sub-tech (new models could be made available in lockstep with new Strategic Bomber ones like in the tech tree) but they do need their own, distinct units to provide the distinct capabilities which are markedly different from those of a Strategic Bomber.

And stating that "Modders will fix it" (I'm sure people will mod in all sorts of special aircraft. ) comes off suspiciously like "We can be lazy in our design because the paying customers will not only pay us but also fix the game for us". Which is... a repulsive attitude to say the least. (To say nothing of the fact that Transport Aircraft are no more special than any other aircraft role... We aren't talking about exotic designs like Aircraft Carrying Submarines here, Podcat, we are talking about designs that are as conventional and run of the mill as they get. Literally passenger aircraft could be repurposed for efficient air deployment, which cannot be said so when talking about converting passenger aircraft to Strategic Bombers.)

Transport Aircraft vs Strategic Bombers is a non-issue, there's no systemic need to ommit Transport Aircraft from the design (as opposed to say "Corps-level Support Regiments/Battalions" which is rightfully a can of worms Paradox is justified in leaving alone).

 

[1alexey]

I understand the need for gameplay manageability, but it'd be one extra production line for any nation that wanted air transport capability. You could then park them in the supply pool for general play, and pull them out and task them to supplying pockets and doing paradrops as required. For people that didn't use them, it's no extra burden at all, and for people that do use them, they're there. Makes a lot more sense than dropping paratroopers/ out of B-17s, Lancasters and He-111s.

Combining them all together (not PlasticPanzer's suggestion of having transport variants of bombers, which'd work fine) also means that every nation with heavy aircraft suddenly has a capacity to supply encircled troops in a pocket. No more strategic need to have a transport airfleet, just send in the heavy bombers. Even the bombers used in the Berlin airlift needed to be refitted (Lancasters that had pre-blockade been turned into commercial fuel tankers and mid-air refueling aircraft, for example), it wasn't just a case of 'let's dust off those bombers, fill 'em full of jerry cans and send them over'. That's a very real gameplay implication - and given the far greater defensive capabilities of bombers, it means any future encirclements would be far easier to maintain than in previous versions of the game, or the actual conflict.

Well, that is precicely what happened during the battle of Stalingrad. German bomber could be bombing Soviets one day, and the next day deliver supplies to the 6th army.

 

[misterbean]

Misterbean,
what is the difference between a B17 and a C47? Indeed.....:rofl:

what 'crazy folks'? 3 out of my 5 doctors say i am sane....:wacko:

ok, you got me there. Still, it's kind of funny seeing this objection from a guy who once conquered the world with Luxemburg by massively exploiting the rules :rofl:
Which brings me to the next bit...

10,000 transports that can magically turn into bombers on a whim?

If you are able one day to use them as bombers and the next day switch them to transport then there's an issue. It should take time and resources to convert between the two roles, otherwise this can be massively exploited.

The difference is that once the transport mission is over, or before it starts, you can happily use those 'dedicated' bombers for regular bombing missions. I'm not a specialist, but I don't think the Germans had to worry about thousands of C-47s bombing the Reich after Market-Garden...

It all depends on how it is implemented in the game. If the AI uses those "transports" as bombers, then we do have a problem. If it doesn't, then it is only a matter of player self-discipline. Even so, you can't really say you lose 10,000 planes, when you can use them for dual puposes. I'd say you actually gain 10,000 bombers instead, because you don't have to build transports that sit idle for most of the game.

edited to add: I would want transports to be tied to research. you research the "transport module", and replace bomb racks with it. there. you just rename them "C-47" or whatever. done.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Well when the AI bombs you with 10,000 bombers then drops 50,000 paratroops on you from them at the same time and comes back to bomb
you that night you might understand more.... Besides they built them so we might consider that they were not numbskulls and they were
seldom 'idle' in real life. Besides i never conquored the world as Luxembourg but I did complain in the early HOI3 about Iceland conquoring
the world...

otherwise and this postwise:

Viva la Revolution!

 

[Vonboe]

If you are able one day to use them as bombers and the next day switch them to transport then there's an issue. It should take time and resources to convert between the two roles, otherwise this can be massively exploited.

Pretty sure it's not going to work like that. From what I can gather if you build, let's say pick heavy airframe B-24 you then have to deside their role, should it be as a transport planes, bomber, strategic bomber, etc. And when those planes are build you are stuck with those planes with whatever role you have build them as, and if you decide you want B-24 bomber you have to start build new airframes with that specific role.

 

[plasticpanzers]

Nope, pretty much it says and Podcast confirmed that bombers do double duty as transports. If you wish he infered you can mod
"special" custom aircraft like C47s and JU52s...

 

[misterbean]

Pretty sure it's not going to work like that. From what I can gather if you build, let's say pick heavy airframe B-24 you then have to deside their role, should it be as a transport planes, bomber, strategic bomber, etc. And when those planes are build you are stuck with those planes with whatever role you have build them as, and if you decide you want B-24 bomber you have to start build new airframes with that specific role.

that's how I read it as well. Same as with tanks. you can't use TDs as regular tanks, either.

 

[plasticpanzers]

from Podcasts (post 41)

"Bombers handle utility tasks. its mostly historical and reduces complexity enormously"


to me the first 7 words are wildly illogical and untrue but the last 3 words explains why he said it (programming).

 

[rutger9]

Looking at it from a purely game play perspective it could make sense though, in 90% of my HoI3 games I never make more then 10 air transport wings and I only use them for the rare paradrops. Now I am against the insta switching from bomber to transport but if it involved a choice to either be transport or bomber then I would be fine with it. (Remember the game hasnt even reached alpha yet, stuff can easily still change.)

 

[Vlad_Constantin]

I think the easiest way to solve the transport dilemma would be to add for the bombers an transport variant, the same way you added to fighters a carrier variant.

 

[Radu]

Nope, pretty much it says and Podcast confirmed that bombers do double duty as transports. If you wish he infered you can mod
"special" custom aircraft like C47s and JU52s...

And to call these aircraft "custom" or "special"... :wacko:

Can I be honest? It smells like dev cliques fighting here.

See, Podcat's "complexity" argument doesn't hold up.

1) They're making HOI IV, it's gonna be complex 'cause it's a HOI game. The fanbase actually welcomes more accuracy, not less. And Paradox seems committed. I mean, by the same token, the "Heavy" Fighters is the same kind of "fat" that can be "trimmed" in the name of "reducing complexity".


2) Complexity can mean "cumbersome to use", but that doesn't hold water for transport aircraft. Ever since HOI 1 Transport Aircraft have been expensive to build and maintain, and that's historically accurate, what changed this time?

3) Complexity can also mean "the AI has no idea how to use this", but the AI lived with Transport Aircraft since HOI 1, again what changed. In HOI 3 it even (eventually) pulled airborne landings. So that doesn't stand.

Simply put, there's no systemic, ergonomic or AI-related reason why Transport Aircraft cannot be their own individual unit. If "Heavy" Fighters and "Not-Heavy" Fighters can co-exist in HOI IV, and the AI knows how to use each to their strength, so can Transport Aircraft and Strategic Bombers co-exist with an AI that knows better than sending Transport Aircraft on Strategic Bombing missions.

That Transport Aircraft are currently cut is simply an expression of a Paradox Dev "flexing their muscles" by imposing arbitrary design decisions for the sake for them. Transport Aircraft, of all aircraft types are the most niche, inoffensive, unambiguous air unit types, even the AI can't screw up using them. To say that Transport Aircraft are a design "eye-sore" is to be insincere.

Heavy Fighters vs Light Fighters on the other hand is a much more "complex" topic both that Paradox, players and AI must contend with, yet it's funny how they are in HOI IV. There's a lot more "gray", more factors to screw up for the designers, players and AI. And yet... we have this split off.

But the clear distinction between Transport Aircraft and Strategic Bombers ? That's a grey area according to Paradox... and that's disingenuous as hell

I'd infer that there is a Heavy Fighter-fan lead dev in the HOI IV, and that lead dev also has a chip on his/her shoulder for Transport Aircraft.

 

[plasticpanzers]

It does not matter for over 90% of the worlds air forces anyhow. We under use our aircraft in the game mostly now. If we had a more realistic supply system in HOI3 we would be (and some players did) having to supply forces from the air to keep them alive or moving. I certainly did as the US in N. Africa as supply lines were long and ports were small. Also when you got into 'friendly' territory and they could not supply your forces enough.

I don't know what the supply system in HOI4 will be but using my B17s and B29s to supply or land paratroops is just wierd. I do know sometimes they did ship fuel and supply for many large armies with bombers but it was VERY limited. To put it simply that is why the US B17 has B for Bomber and C47 have C for Cargo and seldom the twain shall meet.

I agree on the 'heavy fighter'. The ME110 is not in the same league as the P38. The initial P51 was a terrible fighter til it recieved the new Rolls Royce engine and bigger prop. The P38 later version was a good fighter. Doolittle loved it. It was not poplular in the ETO but was very popular in the Med and Pacific where they could not get enough of them. I wonder what the German and Japanese heavies will be? P38 and ME110 the same 1st generation fighters? Not hardly, not even close.

 

[Gamer_1745]

Although podcat has posted here I still don't think we have clarity on the subject. Will planes of some type be able to transport troops & supplies? Also it has not been said that the same plane will both transport troops & supplies and bomb targets. There might be a Bomber version of the Ju-52 and a transport version. Both using the same airframe, but 2 different planes.

I am not sure that this is all about combat AI, the BICE team made a really cool Air tech development but the AI was not researching it well. They went back, keeping most all the features, and reorganized it & had requirements to develop the next level and now the AI does much better researching aircraft development. It really is a thing of beauty.

 

[Radu]

Although podcat has posted here I still don't think we have clarity on the subject.

"Bombers handle utility tasks" - I believe that's quite unambiguous. ( http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...d-Air-tech&p=18038575&viewfull=1#post18038575 )

Literally, according to Paradox : "You know how in Market Garden they didn't have enough Transport Aircraft to drop all troops in Day 1? What a bunch of morons that they didn't use their Strategic Bomber fleet to drop in more troops." Because that's totally how it works in real life. Why, the US's B-52 bombers can be counted on to deploy the 101st Airborne. The C-130? What's that? :|

Such a gross departure from reality is apparently the name of the game for Paradox... which incidentally also stands in complete opposition to the highly detailed Divsion Builder. You're telling the Division Builder is less complex than having Transport Aircraft represented?

The Division Builder - not complex. Transport Aircraft ? OMG, cut them before they meltdown the processor!

Again, something's rotten here as leaving out Transport Aircraft is completely gratuitous.